I was invited by Nature magazine to write a Letter in response to the September Exeter meeting http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/home, and have been working with a member of their staff on edits over the past two weeks. This morning, I received the startling e-mail below from Nature’s Chief Commissioning Editor. Quite frankly, the only way I can interpret this behavior is as an example of the continued bias in Nature’s reporting of climate issues. Their statement that “We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question” is a remarkable admission.

Dear Professor Pielke, Thank you very much for taking the time to write to Nature, upon request. And for the revisions you’ve made, again at our request. We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page. We will however continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders, as appropriate. We apologise for having taken up your time in this way. Sincerely, Sara Abdulla Chief Commissioning Editor Opinion [incl Correspondence and Books & Arts] Nature

Sara Abdulla, Nature editor - Image: scienceblogs.com

Here is what was rejected: Temperature dataset effort vulnerable to problems by Roger A. Pielke Sr. Peter Stott and Peter Thorne recently conducted a meeting in Exeter to improve the quality control and archival procedures for global surface temperature data, at which I was not present. I applaud the aim of this meeting (doi:10.1038/4661040d) — to solicit multiple views from the climate community on how to create confidence in raw data and metadata, and to provide a set of blind benchmarking tools for the assessment of data adjustment algorithms. But I worry that the group seemingly has yet to tackle some valid concerns about that data. I was glad to see in the meeting notes several candid admissions of the shortcomings of existing surface temperature data assessments. The group acknowledged the problem of undocumented changes to temperature records and a lack of international exchange of detailed stations histories, as well as the recognition that non-traditional climate scientists are now playing a significant role in constructing a better climate dataset. They recognized that there may be important, unresolved systematic biases and uncertainties in the current data, and acknowledged the value of efforts such as www.surfacestations.org, which has prodded the US National Climatic Data Center and others to examine their analyses more rigorously. The group’s commitment to quantifying and reporting statistical uncertainties and data adjustments is to be commended. But the meeting notes suggest that the group did not sufficiently address other valid concerns about data collection [Pielke et al 2007]. These include the need to improve the improve the documentation of humidity at temperature stations [e.g. Davey et al 2006; Fall et al 2010], the height of the observations [Klotzbach et al 2009, Lin et al 2007] and to pay more attention to the siting of surface stations. Many stations still have not been documented with photographs, for example – this is a simple problem that should be addressed immediately. I would like to see the Exeter group address these issues explicitly, and, importantly, make a commitment to having all analyses and findings from these data sets assessed by independent scientists [Mahmood et al 2010]. All too often in the past, results have been assessed by scientists associated with the agencies that performed the analyses. This should not continue. References Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. Davey, C.A., R.A. Pielke Sr., and K.P. Gallo, 2006: Differences between near-surface equivalent temperature and temperature trends for the eastern United States – Equivalent temperature as an alternative measure of heat content. Global and Planetary Change, 54, 19–32. Fall, S., N. Diffenbaugh, D. Niyogi, R.A. Pielke Sr., and G. Rochon, 2010: Temperature and equivalent temperature over the United States (1979 – 2005). Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.2094. Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841. Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652. Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, G. Bonan, P. Lawrence, B. Baker, R. McNider, C. McAlpine, A. Etter, S. Gameda, B. Qian, A. Carleton, A. Beltran-Przekurat, T. Chase, A.I. Quintanar, J.O. Adegoke, S. Vezhapparambu, G. Conner, S. Asefi, E. Sertel, D.R. Legates, Y. Wu, R. Hale, O.W. Frauenfeld, A. Watts, M. Shepherd, C. Mitra, V.G. Anantharaj, S. Fall,R. Lund, A. Nordfelt, P. Blanken, J. Du, H.-I. Chang, R. Leeper, U.S. Nair, S. Dobler, R. Deo, and J. Syktus, 2010: Impacts of land use land cover change on climate and future research priorities. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 37–46, DOI: 10.1175/2009BAMS2769.1

Post navigation

107 thoughts on “The season of disinvitation continues”

Welcome to the blow out phase of AGW mania: openly suppressing discussion of climate science so as to avoid dealing with any critique, challenge, thought or idea that unsettles the dogma of catastrophic climate change.
This social movement is to climate science what eugenics was to evolution.
Hold firm, Dr. Pielke. Your integrity will beat their lack of integrity. Your hunger for truth will beat their denial of truth. Your adherence to the scientific method and its highest ideals will beat their cynical transparent abuse of the same.

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.-
Thank you so much for your efforts on this.
Years ago there was a political party in Australia that ran on the slogan “Keep the Bastards Honest”.
Keeping them honest requires many admirable traits and you have demonstrated they all.
Again, thank you for your efforts.

I think you guys need to stop assuming that Nature is a respected science journal – it is a glossy magazine. It went the New Scientist way several years ago chasing hype and attention by misreporting stories to gain maximum publicity for itself.
Don’t give magazines any attention. The truth will win.

Nature is not science. Just nature.
If a magazine is, after there was some noise over the last year on how data was made up to conform / confirm to the official view, not willing to have you in, your interpretation is right. There is a bias, a believe stronger than science.

Well, they are correct that this is something that is bigger than a “letters” page can accomodate. That said, you should be involved in the larger discussion and paper they develop – to do otherwise would be to whitewash the temp data, just like a good Mann-supporting pub would do…

Quote
“The group acknowledged the problem of undocumented changes to temperature records and a lack of international exchange of detailed stations histories, as well as the recognition that non-traditional climate scientists are now playing a significant role in constructing a better climate dataset. They recognized that there may be important, unresolved systematic biases and uncertainties in the current data, and acknowledged the value of efforts such as http://www.surfacestations.org, which has prodded the US National Climatic Data Center and others to examine their analyses more rigorously”.
A couple of truths in there and i fancy they hit home…Hard!
When they do things like this because they can not take critisim they lose all credible
argument.
Have you asked who and what information prompted the decision, have you upset members of the TEAM!!

Do you know how many other people were invited to write letters and who they are?
Abdulla’s acknowledgment that “there are too many nuances to this situation” should lead to an attempt by Nature to help the scientific community understand what the nuances are and what to do about them. If they’re going to be a leading force in the community, this is something where they could lead.
Instead, they’ll “continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders.”
My guess that policy won’t make it into the pages of Nature either.
Hmm, I claim the primacy on “Too nuanced for Nature.” 🙂

Did Ms. Abdulla’s decision to shut down Dr. Pielke reflect her own judgment, or did she buckle under to someone else? Either way, she should be embarrassed, and concerned about her future in a scientific journalism community where openness is steadily increasing.

We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page.
We will however continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders, as appropriate.
So she knows who applied the leverage to spike your letter, and admits that the story isn’t over. That’s like tying your self to a sinking ship. There is dumb, and there is dumber.
RP Jr, keep up the good work, as per Josh’s cartoon, you are still right!

Disappointing, certainly, but surprising it is not.
“Nature”, perhaps more appropriately dubbed “The Trick”, continues its descent from scientific journal to activism rag. With such overt actions as this it is reasonable to assume that the shift is purposeful and unashamed.

Jack Maloney says:
September 28, 2010 at 5:44 am
“where openness is steadily increasing.” – I am afraid I do not see this happening. Quite the opposite in fact. Entrenchment is the order of the day. The general public do seem to be wising up to the scam, and politicians seem to be aware of the sea change in public opinion. How much would you bet that Ms. Abdulla would lose her position and be shunned had she gone ahead with Dr. Pielke’s article? Sadly, we have a long road ahead. Damned if I will give it up, though. Hold Fast.

These include the need to improve the improve the documentation of humidity at temperature stations
Hopefully this was a simply an error in transcription to this blog post, and didn’t pass the two weeks of editing with the Nature staff person.

Since when is science intimidated by nuance? Maybe if there are too many “nuances” for a short letter, Nature should offer Dr Pielke a larger forum so the “nuances” can be properly explored.
I think there must have been some serious pressure brought to bear to cause them to rescind their offer.

This was a letter, but first commissioned/encouraged by Nature. Is that not unusual in itself? Then rejected for publication by pressure from people outside that magazine on the basis of ‘nuances’! Sounds like there was a tip-off to the Thought Police and at least one employee of Nature is probably on the rack as I type.

I’ve just now combed the comments on the New Statesman piece on Steve McIntyre. They are almost entirely filled with praise for a true scientist. I could practically cry.
‘Steve McIntyre’s contribution has been wholly positive. Through his brilliant analysis and persistence, he has forced the values of the Age of the Enlightenment on a dismal “science” which had acquired all the characteristics of a religion.’
‘Steve has all the qualities and accomplishments needed for robust and quantitative comment in a field as controversial as climate science. His scholarly demolition of a shockingly flawed paper, on which politicians and many academics have based their careers, rocked the climate establishment. Anyone who claims to have an open mind on the subject will know that no-one deserves world-wide recognition more than Steve for his tolerance, objectivity, perseverance and insight into a subject of huge importance to us all..’

I suspect that Nature is grappling with a more pedestrian problem — their business model. Peer review is an invention of the publishing industry. The value proposition of a relatively narrowly distributed publication like Nature is that they are the gatekeepers of “knowledge you can trust”. Peer review has been the mechanism by which they distinguish their content from (what they would claim) is the less trustworthy content of “grey literature”. Non-traditional publication methods like WUWT are a disruptive threat to their business model. They simply can not endorse, in any way, work done through a non-peer reviewed channel without putting their business model at risk. Nature is probably in a full blown panic right now as blogs are routinely uncovering serious errors in peer-review work.

As climate science has become merely the tool of the political hack, all science and respect for scientists declines. Hiding behind ‘nuance’ is another way to hide the decline. It is the Nature of the political beast……

The MSM have lost out to the better elements of the blogosphere as a source of incisive thought in every field. Specialist science journals such as Nature are now shown up as lacking in the the unbending impartiality that we have long believed them to possess. Perhaps what is now demonstrated, is not so much that scientific journals are now poorer than once they were, as that we believed in a quality of impartiality that did not exist.

Time to get serious with these organizations. Pielke Sr. should invoice Nature for the time spent (in all its aspects and cost of doing business)) to prepare the material for the invitation to present, and perhaps factor in an opportunity loss based on potential derivative benefit from having published. Shouldn’t be too hard to come up with a modest but actionable amount under small claims court standards. Then, when they don’t pay (and they won’t), take them to small claims. Little to lose, and could be a huge empiric victory…

This kind of stuff is just juvenile. Do they meet in a falling down shack with a “Do Not Enter” sign haphazardly nailed to the door? Do they issue plastic laser and light sabers to members? Do they have a secret handshake and a decoder ring too? Given the attitude displayed by Nature, and apparently the meeting participants, this is one magazine I would NOT want my name associated with.

Simon Hopkinson says:
September 28, 2010 at 6:00 am
Disappointing, certainly, but surprising it is not.
“Nature”, perhaps more appropriately dubbed “The Trick”, continues its descent from scientific journal to activism rag. With such overt actions as this it is reasonable to assume that the shift is purposeful and unashamed.
Simon
I do so agree with you – Its amazing how even among those of a science background that formerly used to quote Nature as “The ultimate reference” on CAGW issues and laud it as “the Top Science Journal”, have changed their tune and now regard it as a failed journal, responsible for destroying the public’s confidence and trust in science and the peer review process.
How the once mighty have fallen, and so much due to their own editorial failure, IMHO!

Nature, NATURE! Weren’t they the ones who published the SHODDY, CHERRY PICKING work by Sternglass in the ’80’s? Correlating increase in “infant mortality” with the start up and running of the Maine Yankee Nuclear power plant? He did that by using sparsely populated counties near the plant. And taking specific years, which because in a “sparsely populated” area infant mortality (overall) rates vary all over the place…as 1, 2, 3 or 4 extra deaths (or lessor) can skew the “deaths per 100,000” all over the place.
In any case, “the Nuclear Industry” (translation, a bunch of rag tag, uncoordinated, defeated, and destroyed utilities an individuals) tried to respond..and were similarily rejected. (As I recall, a Dr. Dave Rossin, Commonwealth Edison, was told that because he was a METALLURGIST and not an epidemiologist..his critizism was not acceptable, Sternglass, by the way…was a “self declared” epidemiologist.)
I think before getting TOO upset over Nature (and “Science” that matter), we must understand these to be “politically motivated journals” that publish only “policically correct” science.
I’d stick to the trade journals, the IEEE Spectrum, the American Nuclear Society, the American Optical Society, the Geophysical Union, etc. There are some signs that “political correctness” does not taint them badly. ALAS, the “King has no new clothes”, is the best way to describe Nature and Science.

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr,
During Nature’s editing process of your proposed letter, did they say which points in your letter they had the most issue with? That would be interesting to know where their problems are more specifically.
I would say that the following two quotes from your proposed letter would be very tough for them to print, in that it opens the door for scientists that are independent of past data management/analysis/adjustment processes to be involved:

.The (Exeter mtg) group acknowledged the problem of . . . [edit] . . . as well as the recognition that non-traditional climate scientists are now playing a significant role in constructing a better climate dataset.

I would like to see the Exeter group address these issues explicitly, and, importantly, make a commitment to having all analyses and findings from these data sets assessed by independent scientists [Mahmood et al 2010]. All too often in the past, results have been assessed by scientists associated with the agencies that performed the analyses. This should not continue.

Those two quotes from your letter go to the essence of the problems with past climate science processes.
Thank you for sharing your experience with Nature Magazine.
John

Please don’t let this rag reinvent itself. Let it go down with the squeeling cagw world wreckers – who btw are already removing the covers from the life boats. We need new journals with unbending integrity and we should mark this shameful era so that we will never forget how close we came to economic and political destruction. The rehab phase will see more invitations that won’t be rescinded. Vilify/ignore – invite/rescind – invite and engagei this is the pattern. We should be setting the agenda and doing the inviting.

The time has surely come (actually it came at least 20 years ago) for the international community to learn who controls Nature. Who are the commercial interests who exert pressure? And which university interests apply pressure? How many `old pals` acts are involved? To deny these is disengenous personified!

Thank you Pielke Sr!
Its important that the bias of climate science reaches the public. They are so scared to loose thier funds and careers that they use any means. In the end truth about the enormous uncertainties will be spread to become public knowledge.Nature is a biased
magazin who totally lost its former credibility.

I’m sure this guy would get an invite.
From this Bloomberg article:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/arctic-grab-is-mad-fight-for-last-oil-frontier-commentary-by-matthew-lynn.html
“There are two good reasons to place a ban on Arctic mining.
First, climate change.
The logic of the energy industry appears to be this: Fossil fuels create global warming, which melts the polar ice cap, which is sort of handy — even though upsetting for the polar bears — because it means that with all that stupid ice out of the way we can start drilling for more oil. And once we get it out, and start burning it, it will melt the ice some more, and make even more oil accessible.
Stop Drilling
It’s crazy. If the polar ice cap is melting — and the bulk of scientific evidence suggests that it is at a rapid rate –the first thing you need to do is stop drilling for more oil.
True, not everyone is convinced that climate change is man- made. There is room for argument. The scientific consensus has been wrong before, and may have gotten this one tangled up as well. And yet, given the catastrophic consequences if the consensus is right, why take the risk?
Great progress is being made with alternatives to fossil fuels. Electric cars are on the verge of breaking into the mass market. Wind, solar and nuclear power are increasingly able to heat our homes and offices. They are better for the environment, and they don’t leave you dependent on people in Moscow or Riyadh to stay warm in winter. Why not press on with developing those rather than drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic?”

I agree with Pamela Gray to a point, but I see the people involved as rather more sinister than a juvenile bunch of gamesters in a badly-built playhouse due to the huge amounts of taxpayer cash they are using as play money and the very serious effects of their translation of the possibility of a couple of degrees of extra temperature and more plant food to keep us well fed, into idiotic doom-mongering.
Once again, a formerly well-regarded magazine has destroyed its own credibility in the wider world by becoming the publicity organ of a self-protecting and slightly paranoid pseudo-religious community.
It is time for a clearing of stables by an enthusiastic and competent investigative journalist who is known for his/her high standards of reportage, backed by an equally-competent and ethical newspaper to bring everything in this area into the light where the public, with its accurate nose for BS, can see what they have been paying for.
I will not hold my breath waiting for this to happen!
Thank goodness for honest and gentlemanly bloggers such as Anthony and scientists such as Dr Pielke Snr.

She wrote there are too many nuances to this situation to be communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page. She does not know how to communicate in brief form, isn’t that what a magazine does. Does she not know the purpose of a letter.
Bottom line, she does not want anyone upsetting her apple cart. So why read the magazine.
How un professional. And what a cheap shot.

The last time I picked up Nature and began reading, I was horribly disappointed with the content. It will undoubtedly go down if they keep up their strict adherance to a political agenda that has precious little basis in science. I say shun the rag; it is worthless from the standpoint of science and an honest, inquiring mind.

I remember when it was a sign you had “made it” as a scientist when you got published in Nature.
Now it’s about as reputable as “Newsweek” (which sold recently for less than the price of one of its weekly magazines).
A symptom of academic groupthink which has not only poisoned climate science literature but several other sciences as well.

Yep, glossy magazine, trash journal. Like tallbloke says, (5:15):
“Hey Nature Editors! How does it feel to be exposed as puppets.”
What happens when the puppeteers fall from grace and find their ability to fund this nonsense has disappeared — carbon credits, anyone? Perhaps they will be found drowned in tea.

mpaul says:
September 28, 2010 at 6:30 am
I suspect that Nature is grappling with a more pedestrian problem — their business model. Peer review is an invention of the publishing industry. The value proposition of a relatively narrowly distributed publication like Nature is that they are the gatekeepers of “knowledge you can trust”. Peer review has been the mechanism by which they distinguish their content from (what they would claim) is the less trustworthy content of “grey literature”.
Non-traditional publication methods like WUWT are a disruptive threat to their business model. They simply can not endorse, in any way, work done through a non-peer reviewed channel without putting their business model at risk. Nature is probably in a full blown panic right now as blogs are routinely uncovering serious errors in peer-review work.
=====
mpaul, you are right on the money!!
The blogosphere is disrupting the publication of science much like music downloads disrupted the sale of CDs (which are now plunging). Business models all over are exploding.
WUWT is very much a peer-reviewing exercise, where the sausage-making process of peer review is on display for all to see….heated discussions, no-holds-barred debate etc. In contrast, the peer review discussions & tussles at Science, Nature, etc. go on behind closed doors.
No wonder the CAGW crowd hates WUWT, Climateaudit and a few others! Keep it up!

Chris B says:
“True, not everyone is convinced that climate change is man- made. There is room for argument. The scientific consensus has been wrong before, and may have gotten this one tangled up as well. And yet, given the catastrophic consequences if the consensus is right, why take the risk?”
Since we know with some certainty that impacts have wiped our planet clean (just about) many times in the past why are we not using the above logic and redirecting the resouces being wasted on attempting to control the uncontrollable, climate, and setting up some provision for saving our species from what is most probably coming…. some day? Answer-The politics of control and the challenge of doing real science and innovation. Present technology could save us from the smaller impacts right now if properly deployed. The larger ones require the innovation.

Isn’t it about time we found out who is interpreting this “nuance”? Perhaps they could post a paper on the interpretation thereof in this particular field, so we can all be better informed as to how the process of censorship in scientific publications actually works.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean censorship, I mean editorial judgement. A subtle but important difference.

In the old days of the controlled, contrived media, this would be the end of.
In the new days, where the leftist’s parrot media is dead, it’s sadly has died as a tool for leftists to control debate. I bet WUWT is read by more people than Nature ever will be.
The best solution, ignore them, they will go the way of the Whigs of the 1850s and just fade away.

It is always the same . . . those who benefit from hysteria and fear mongering are so afraid of the truth that they feel justified in suppressing it.
As their house of cards shakes and tilts, as the truth about their data “adjustments” is revealed, as their political hijacking of real science and the easy cooperation of fellow travelers in the science community is revealed, they simply dig their own graves deeper & faster.
They can obfuscate, disinvite, “adjust” . . . whatever.
Their time in the limelight is over.
Now just to calculate the damage done by over a $trillion dollars of faulty global policy decisions based on climate scientology.

For an editor to decline publication of a contribution to a scholarly journal because “there are too many nuances to this situation” is astonishing. As a publisher of scholarly journals for more than twenty years, I recall not a single instance of a contribution being rejected in such a cavalier fashion. If an item is rejected, an author expects, deserves and in my experience normally receives an explicit justification.

I wonder how the readerships of Nature and Watts Up With That compare? And I wonder how those readerships are changing with time?
Someone (Macmillan) makes a fortune from Nature – and that money comes directly from Universities and Researchers. Nature’s profits are simply siphoned from taxes.
I suspect that the cunning monopolistic scam of selling academics papers back to other academics won’t survive forever.

“Jim G says:
September 28, 2010 at 8:13 am
Chris B says:
“True, not everyone is convinced that climate change is man- made. There is room for argument. The scientific consensus has been wrong before, and may have gotten this one tangled up as well. And yet, given the catastrophic consequences if the consensus is right, why take the risk?”
Since we know with some certainty that impacts have wiped our planet clean (just about) many times in the past why are we not using the above logic and redirecting the resouces being wasted on attempting to control the uncontrollable, climate, and setting up some provision for saving our species from what is most probably coming…. some day? Answer-The politics of control and the challenge of doing real science and innovation. Present technology could save us from the smaller impacts right now if properly deployed. The larger ones require the innovation.”
Jim,
It was actually Matthew Lynn who made the statement that you attributed to me. It was in his Bloomberg article supporting the idea of putting a ban on oil exploration in the Arctic because we are already making sufficient progress in alternate energy sources.
I disagree with almost everything stated in his article.
Chris

Looks like Sarah is one of those lefty, liberal, touchy feely, empowered, neo-marxist wimmin! Obviously does not have the balls for the job – a real editor would have put up a fight and not caved in!
Like many visiting this site, I am not going to renew my Sci Am or New Scientist subscriptions. Science magazines they are not! I gave up on Nature some time ago.

Sara Abdulla says: “There are too many nuances to this situation.”
Anyone who has read Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion, and read the Climategate emails knows that the most likely ‘nuance’ was Michael Mann working furiously behind the scenes, threatening ethics-challenged, weak-willed Nature employees like Sara.
Mann has done exactly the same thing before, emailing and organizing supporters to blackball journals that don’t toe the CAGW line, getting skeptical scientists fired, forcing editorial board members to resign, etc.
Caving in to the bullying tactics of an IPCC child star is not an admirable quality. Worse was the shameful way that Abdulla gave in to the climate charlatan, reneging on the Nature invitation on specious and vague grounds.
Will Sara name the individual(s) who brought pressure to bear on her? Don’t hold your breath.

there are too many nuances
I find that my “bs detector” now uses the word “nuance” (and nuanced, nuances, etc.) as red flags meaning “I need to politely tell a whopper”.
It takes little “nuance” to tell the truth, even less to say “this is good” or “that fails to account for this point”. Or even “that is wrong”. What takes “nuance” is telling the polite social lie in such a way that it does not stand out. “Love what that dress does for your figure” instead of “For a pudgette, you can do OK with a tent”… You hear it all the time in congress where “My esteemed colleague” means “That SOB over there”…
So my translation of their rejection reason is this: “There are just too many things needing a butt cover, that you would highlight, for us to plaster over them all”.
Congratulations on being a clear and honest person. Rejection like that ought to be framed and prominently displayed!

Those of you who think this Exeter business is just child’s play or the last gasps of CAGW gravy-trainers be aware that the other new fad like disinvitation is whitewashing. Oh, there will be a few adjustments and some recommendations but…. wait for it… “Our statistical evaluation of the existing data shows that while improvements can be and should be made, it will not materially change the trend toward CAGW.” They will get a lot of money to re-re-homogenize the data, replace a few thermometers and will likely find the temp rise is even steeper than we thought. Remember, they were charged with this re-evaluation of the record by the US government (Senate committee members?) or some such – it wasn’t of their own initiative. Surely you don’t expect a turn about…Gee I guess we were wrong and Dr. Pielke Snr and Anthony Watts were right. This won’t happen and we will now be stuck with a renewed flim flam now acceptable to elected representatives.

“Nuance” is a word popularized by John F. Kerry, who was subsequently spanked by G.W. Bush.
In Ms Abdulla’s case, ‘nuance’ means, “You wouldn’t understand.”
But we do understand. Pressure was brought to bear, and Nature caved.

Chris B says:
“Jim,
It was actually Matthew Lynn who made the statement that you attributed to me. It was in his Bloomberg article supporting the idea of putting a ban on oil exploration in the Arctic because we are already making sufficient progress in alternate energy sources.
I disagree with almost everything stated in his article.
Chris”
Sorry, Chris, I did not catch the attribution for your quote but now I see the quote marks. My mistake. But then, I am married, and according to my wife I am always wrong anyway.
Jim

HOW CLIMATE IS CHANGING ?
Massive Arctic ice island drifting toward shipping lanes The biggest Arctic “ice island” to form in
nearly 50 years — a 250-square-kilometer behemoth described as four times the size of Manhattan —
has been discovered after a Canadian scientist scanning satellite images of northwest Greenland spotted
a giant break in the famed Petermann Glacier.Canada.com – Aug 07 10:16am
In another research, using Autosub, an autonomous underwater vehicle, researchers led by the British Antarctic
Survey have captured ocean and sea-floor measurements, which revealed a 300 meter high
ridge on the sea floor. Pine Island Glacier was once sitting atop this underwater ridge,
which slowed its flow into the sea. The warm water, trapped under the ice, is causing the
bottom of the ice shelf to thaw, resulting in continuousthinning and acceleration of glacial
melt. Lead author Adrian Jenkins said, “The discovery of the ridge has raised new questions
about whether the current loss of ice from Pine Island Glacier is caused by recent climate
change or is a continution of a longer-term process that began when the glacier disconnect
from the ridge”. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100620200810.htm
Not only warm water, but also concentrated Magnesium Chloride =7,100 p.p.m & Sodium
Chloride= 31,000 p.p.m. (de-icing agents) trapped under the ice, is causing the bottom of the
ice shelf to thaw, resulting in continuous thinning and acceleration of glacial melt
(under water glacier cutting).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fGHlEBvKYw&sns=fb
Last Winter, Australian Glaciologist, Neal Young, declared that more than 300 icebergs are
floating in the East Antarctica.
DISINTEGRATED ICE SHELVES DISINTEGRATION DATES
Worde Ice shelf March 1986
Larsen A Ice shelf January 1995
Larsen B Ice shelf February 2002
Jones Ice Shelf 2008
Wilkins Ice shelf March 2008
If the Ice shelves are disintegrating during WINTER, it is not SUN or CO2.
U.N. Secretary General, BAN KI-MOON recently declared that ” Let me be clear, the thread of
Climate Change is real “.
“The Climate is changing” said JAY LAWRIMORE, Chief of Climate Analysing at the National
Climate Data Center in Asheville, N.C. “Extreme events are occuring with greater frequency and
in many cases with greater intensity”.
The current Climate Change is due to the following:-
1. Mushrooming of Sea water desalination systems in the Middle East: Discharging of desalination
& Cleaning chemicals & Concentrated brine into Oceans & Seas.
2. Artificial Island developments in the Arabian Gulf since 1985: dredging, drilling, dynamiting &
excavation of sea floor shifted Magnesium Chloride, Sulfur & Sodium Chloride.
The geographic position of the Arabian Gulf, Ocean circulations bringing it to Arctic & Antarctic Oceans
during Monsoon seasons along with hot water of the Middle East.
Those who are having the Oceans water Analysis since 1980 will WIN the Climate WAR. Concentrated
7,100 p.p.m. of Magnesium Chloride & 31,000 p.p.m. of Sodium Chloride are detected in the Arabian Gulf.
These are De-icing agents which are helping to disintegrates the Arctic & Antarctic Ice shelves. Now
International Desalination Association (IDA) formed a committee to investigate about it.
If we enforce strict Environmental regulations, recover MgCl3 and NaCl3 at Straight of Hormosa and
Straight of Gibraltar and recover those at closed eddies of Baffin Bay & Green Land Sea. Sea ice & Ice
shelfs in Arctic & Antarctic are Natural Air Conditioners of the Planet EARTH. When more ice in both
Poles, the third Pole, as Scientists described, Himalayas will have abundance of ice and Snow & Bolivi
will have more Glaciers & water.
Book releasing soon in USA ” Environmental Rapes & H. R. abuses Lead to Climate Change Control”.
(Full color 450 pages) by Raveendran Narayanan also visit:http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=358564892147&ref=ts SARVA KALA VALLABHAN
GROUP in Face book.
Raveendran Narayanan, U.S.A.
Tel-1-347-847-0407
E- mail : bestfriend97usa@yahoo.comnarayananraveen@gmail.comnarayananraveen@yahoo.com

The phrase that I find chilling is “We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question“.
In other words, it sounds like someone from the meeting found out about Pielke’s letter, and bullied Nature into withdrawing it.

“Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. ”
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
“To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink (1977).
1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking[
1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
2. Incomplete survey of objectives
3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
4. Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selection bias in collecting information
7. Failure to work out contingency plans.”
AGWistas score all 15 points.

There certainly is a bias. In June Naomi Oreskes and Tom Connally had an opinion piece “Defeating the Merchants of Doubt” in Nature which in effect was a two-page illustrated ad for their book. In it they said: “We believe that the preponderance of evidence is such that scientists should now clearly label anthropogenic warming as a fact.” I objected to that and sent a “Brief Communications Arising” to NATURE. I was told you can’t do that to an opinion piece, send it in as a letter. I did and was promptly rejected. I don’t know of any more blatant advocacy of global warming than allowing that statement to stand unchallenged.

Nature a Science Journal, who are we kidding, Science Fiction maybe.
Ah it’s all gone quiet on global warming or whatever they call it nowadays, well except for the sound of shovels as so called scientists dig themselves out of the big hole they got themselves in…

The 1960’s and 1970’s hippies who bought the left wing agenda and were the skeptics and protestors of their day are now in charge and much more resistant to skepticism and protest than those who were in charge back then. Perhaps we need to get our skeptics of today to begin to have protests featuring rock bands (rappers?), sex and drugs to attract more involvement from young people. Have not seen much of that in the Tea Party yet. Remarkable, that now that all the burned out hippie lefties are in charge they seem much more fanatical in their defense of the status quo than those whom they once opposed and are the first to censor dissent.

I have a strong feeling that Dr. Pielke will be able to get lots of testimony time in front of either Rep. Issa’s or Rep. Sensenbrenner’s committee. (that’ll be worked out in January)
And unlike Ms. Abdullah’s nonsense meetings, these hearings are going to be for real.
this is gonna be fun.

Since this article does bring up control of temperature datasets let me tell you guys where to look. James Hansen testified to the Senate in 1988 that warming had started and that carbon dioxide we were putting into the air was its cause. If you look at the global temperature curve from NOAA you see indeed a big red triangle of rising temperatures that begins in the late seventies. That is supposed to be the late twentieth century warming that carries on into the twenty-first. But here is the problem: when you look at satellite temperature measurements that warming simply isn’t there. What there is is temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until 1998 when a super El Nino arrives. That is ten years after Hansen proclaimed his warming. The oscillations satellites see are real and belong to alternating El Nino and La Nina periods in the Pacific. There are five El Nino peaks in a twenty year period. If you compare this satellite curve with NASA or Hadley’s HadCRUT3 you notice that the El Nino peaks coincide, at least the first four. What is different is that they have lifted up the La Nina valley bottoms to make them shallow. And this simple device changes a horizontal curve into a rising temperature curve they call the late twentieth century warming. The peaks themselves give them that rise but in the real world deep valleys in between balance that out. If any temperature datasets are to be investigated the strange case of warming in the eighties and nineties should be the first one to be tackled.

Dear Professor Pielke. We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page. Sara Abdulla Chief Commissioning Editor Opinion [incl Correspondence and Books & Arts] Nature.
———————————————————————————–
Professor Pielke. The picture of Ms Abdulla with her panda says more about her than her response to you or that I could possibly write.
It seems to me though, that what you wrote was perfectly clear and to the point and would have opened up many opportunities for an editor of a magazine who had any idea of what the job was about. For information from attendees read “my minders”.
Mic

It seems that Nature is not the only science publication with a puppet editor:
Joan Cranmer’s Fateful Decisions and the Suppression of Autism Science
Suppression By Mark Blaxill
On February 12, 2010 the journal Neurotoxicology made a quiet change on its web-site to an “in-press” article that had previously been available as an “epub ahead of print.” There was no press release or public announcement, simply an entry change. The entry for the article, “Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight”, was first modified to read “Withdrawn” and has since been removed altogether from the Neurotoxicology web-site. The only remaining official trace of the paper is now the following listing on the National Library of Medicine’s “PubMed” site.
Neurotoxicology. 2009 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print]
WITHDRAWN: Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight.
Hewitson L, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, White ER, Wakefield AJ.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States; Thoughtful House Center for Children, Austin, TX 78746, United States.
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.
How can a scientific study simply vanish? This paper had cleared every hurdle for entry into the public scientific record: it had passed peer review at a prestigious journal, received the editor’s approval for publication, been disseminated in electronic publication format (a common practice to ensure timely dissemination of new scientific information), and received the designation “in press” as it stood in line awaiting future publication in a print version of the journal. Now, and inexplicably, it has been erased from the official record. For practical scientific purposes it no longer exists.
continues at:http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/joan-cranmers-fateful-decisions-and-the-suppression-of-autism-science.html

hunter says:
September 28, 2010 at 5:14 am
Its high time that AGW was studied from the viewpoint of philosophy.
The end is nigh!
It seems obvious that the precept of human induced impending catastrophe unless we change our ways, is taken directly from the bible, and satisfies a wish fulfilment thereof. We are sinners and we are doomed unless we redeem ourselves. This is the precept of AGW in a nutshell.
None of the apocalypses from the bible, or other religious sources have any veracity regarding our fate

I’ll bet London to a brick that this was the sentence whut done it..
“They recognized that there may be important, unresolved systematic biases and uncertainties in the current data, and acknowledged the value of efforts such as http://www.surfacestations.org, which has prodded the US National Climatic Data Center and others to examine their analyses more rigorously.
If only the good doctor hadn’t mentioned the surfacestations project.
You got a lot to answer for Watts. /sarc off

Jim G says:
September 28, 2010 at 8:13 am
Chris B says:
“…And yet, given the catastrophic consequences if the consensus is right, why take the risk?…”
—
Due to the fact that we don’t know enough about what drives climate change, and the chaotic climate system as a whole, to do anything meaningful. Hence, we should not do anything yet, thereby avoiding making things worse. This is especially true given the mountains of amassing observational data currently pointing towards natural variability and pointing away from CO2. See above: Arno Arrak says:
September 28, 2010 at 11:00 am
Past attempts: Kyoto, taxation, wind farms, etc, should give poignant examples of how good intentions, when based on incomplete data and poorly understood processes (I’d be remiss not to mention bogus GCM’s also), can go horribly awry. By acting on information generated by a political/market agenda (as opposed to actual data) they run the risk of making matters worse, on top of making no improvement to the so-called “crises situation” (CAGW).
The marketing and propaganda tactics being blatantly employed by these people: those controlling the purse strings of publications such as Nature and Science, will not subside any time soon, there’s too much money at stake. Keep in mind that many of these puppetmasters are also convinced that the planet can only sustain, and the numbers vary wildly here, 500 million to 3 billion people.
Make no mistake, as many others have already said: strings are being pulled and pressure is being brought to bear in an attempt to prop up a now thin facade. We will continue the fight to restore some semblance of credibility to science, by bringing our own pressure to bear: cancelled subscriptions, letters to the editors, senators, etc.
Thanks to Dr. Pielke, and many others, for their attempts to right these wrongs and to expose the true colors of these once venerated, now degenerated institutions.
And thanks to Anthony et al for the few forums we have for expression.

Are those punctuation and syntax errors copied directly from Sarah Abdulla’s original email? If so, I have to wonder why someone so unfamiliar with correct written English is working as Chief Commissioning Editor for a leading publication like Nature. Yes, it’s only an email — but even writing informally, anybody who works with words for a living ought to be able to do better than that.

Billy Liar says:
September 28, 2010 at 11:28 am
Jim G says:
September 28, 2010 at 8:13 am
“I’m more interested in research into how to tell a ‘little ice age’ from ‘the big one’ when you’re at the start of it.”
We could survive a little, or even big, ice age, there just would not be as many of us. An impact event could wipe us out as a species since this is presently our only home planet.

” We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page.”
In other words,
” We have decided that, because some people disagree with your opinion, we are going to siffle your voice, in an attempt to quell any use of ‘intelligent debate.’
Please refer to James Hansen and the CRU for any thoughts on Climate Science. Thank you.”

First they ignore you then they attack you and half your science then they plagiarize your icons and steal half your science while suppressing the other half and suppressing all acknowledgements.
Gallery of rogues.

It seems that Nature is not the only science publication with a puppet editor:
Joan Cranmer’s Fateful Decisions and the Suppression of Autism Science
Suppression By Mark Blaxill…

Andrew, the key there is “thimerosal”. THIMEROSAL. Known in the UK as thio-mersal. A mercury compound, used as a preservative for vaccines. It is a huge tragedy that it was used for so long despite warnings and obvious unsuitability. What do people think Mad Hatter’s disease was? And giving it to neonatals is the worst possible action. It is unfortunate that the doctor who suspected MMR simply didn’t go far enough. It wasn’t the combination of MMR, it was the preservative. It is the cause of the recent epidemic of autism. Could have triggered my own Asperger’s, years ago.

The ironic thing is that the decision to suppress will probably generate
more publicity for Rogers view that publication itself. It is well known
in literature that attempts to censor books inevitably leads to more sales.

Sorry for being OT but I can’t let the comments of Andrew P (11:13am) and Lucy (4:24 pm) pass. Perhaps the reason for the withdrawal of the paper was related to the fact that the theory on which the MMR scare was based has been debunked and Dr Wakefield, the originater of that theory and one of the authors of this paper, was the subject of a major investigation by the British Medical Council whose disciplinary panel report was opublished in January 2010. Dr Wakefield was recently (May 2010) struck off the UK medical register for his research conduct.

disingenuous invitations
disingenuous consultations
disingenuous dialogue with the sceptics
disingenuous attempts to make the temperature record more transparent
when you have already reached a conclusion and are not open-minded, such reaching out is always disingenuous in the end
participating in surfacetemperatures.org means signing on in advance to a blank contract agreeing with whatever result they come up with in the end
interesting that surfacetemperatures.org is so close to surfacestations.org

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy